Hundreds Attend Anti-Islam Rally in Waukesha

With the big-name draw of Walid Shoebat, more than 200 people gathered at the Waukesha Expo Center Saturday night to hear the message that Islam is a growing threat to law and peace in the United States.

Shoebat, who says he is an ex-terrorist, has been confronted about his past by media outlets like CNN, who reported they could find no evidence to support his background story. But he stood by his case Saturday, saying the media were the real frauds.

“Heck, sometimes even FOX News doesn’t even like what I have to say, because I say Islam is not a peace-loving religion,” Shoebat told the crowd.

Brookfield residents Chuck and Sharon Bloom left the rally Saturday with a plastic bag full of books sold by VCY America, a Christian radio station that sponsored the event. The couple was hoping to learn more about Islam and to build a case against the proposed mosque.

“More than just me and my wife, the community needs to be informed,” Chuck Bloom said. “I think it’s important to find out exactly what questions we need to ask to make sure there’s no sharia law, etcetera.”

Sharia law was the buzz phrase of the evening, especially surrounding the mosque. Shoebat said while he supports freedom of religion, Islam as an institution stretches beyond religious practice with sharia law. Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

“It’s not the mosque I have a problem with,” Shoebat said, making no specific reference to the Brookfield proposal. “It’s, where is the funding coming from, and will the mosque sign and swear that they will never be sharia?”

Brookfield aldermen were invited to the event and had reserved seats in the front row, but the seats were quickly filled by other attendees when it appeared they did not show up.

Brookfield Mayor Steven Ponto and Alderman Scott Berg have both previously stated they do not think the religion of Islam should be considered in deciding whether to grant the Islamic Society of Milwaukee the permit they need to build their proposed mosque for land northeast of the intersection of Calhoun Road and North Avenue.

But Shoebat’s comments were echoed by the audience as the filed out of the Expo Center.

David Ball, a pastor from New Berlin, said he came “to find out if the message about what Islam really is is getting out properly.”

“I hold freedom of religion very dear, but Islam is not just a religion; it is also a state government system, completely contrary to our system of government,” Ball said. “Our Constitution should not be subverted to sharia law.”

Brookfield resident Robin Couillard said she found out about the proposed mosque for the first time at the event. She said she was especially concerned about Shoebat’s remark that a mosque is like an embassy for Islam and sharia law.

“I’m just shocked that this is being proposed for Brookfield,” she said. “I’m concerned about Islam overtaking our community, and our country, and the world.”

Organizers with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee have previously defended their proposal — and their religion — to opposition that surfaced at a meeting in March at the Brookfield Public Library.

Several residents said they want to mobilize opposition to the mosque, but did not have set plans for doing so, other than attending to the public hearing set for May 7 at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 2000 N. Calhoun Rd. There will also be a public information hearing May 2 at 5 p.m. in the public safety building courtroom at 2100 N. Calhoun Rd.

“Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.” why a link to council on foreign relations? i think they meant to put in cair there? anyways, why do they drop the criminal punishment (hudod) part of sharia law from that sentence?

so can any of you learned muslims here answer my simple scenerio?

my sister marries a muslim. they have a boy and a girl. they die without a will. his brother arguees in family court that sharia inheritance law should apply. i arguee that florida law should apply. so should the girl receive half as much as her brother, per allah’s command?

Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one’s estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one’s parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children – you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

obligation by allah? that truely is sad. god being such a sexist.

//mike 16 April 2012 at 5:47 pm

In such a scenario, the case will go to probate, not family court. If the mother is living, the judge will give the entire estate to her. If she is deceased, the judge will equally divide the assets between the children. If the children are religious Muslims or Jews who both choose to go to a sharia court or a beit din, the probate judge will take ithe religious court’s decision into account. Civil law always trumps religious law, so one shouldn’t fear the existence of a sharia court. The Jewish beit din has been around for over a century, and it certainly doesn’t threaten the American way of life .

//Leyla 16 April 2012 at 7:05 pm

understanding, of course, that this was a time when the social and economic reality was that women were dependents of men. this inheritance law makes perfect sense in that context. women at the time were not the ones taking care of finances. Even this was simply a rule of thumb. Muhammad’s first wife was a very independent businesswoman that became independently wealthy. However, this would have been the exception. I’m sure if a revelation were made now at this time, it would be adjusted to the more autonomous lives that women live today. The problem with most religions is that edicts that made sense a thousand years ago and addressed issues in that context are applied to the modern day. That’s why most Muslims today are probably going to go with the latter option, and stick to the law of the land.

Islam is not inherently bad, but it is not practiced as well as it should be. Like the US or civil rights or other human institutions, it is certainly in need of a reform process, which many countries are trying to push (Yemen is trying to end child marriages, Morocco rape marriages). instead of trying to bash Islam and those that follow it, perhaps it would be more constructive to offer ideas for reform, re-interpretation, and more effective reconciliation with modern day issues.

//Siyajkak 16 April 2012 at 11:16 pm

Islam is rooted in nothing but violence and lust. Anyone who thinks muslims desire to live in peace with their neighbors has no capacity to think outside their politically correct world. They prove this time and time again wherever they go…

//Bushaw 17 April 2012 at 4:22 am

leyla,

sorry i was using the term family court as an umbrella for civil laws pertaining to family matters. inheritance without a will usually falls to blood relatives. anyways. “Civil law always trumps religious law, so one shouldn’t fear the existence of a sharia court.” i hope you’re right. but there has been recent evidence to the contrary. “If the children are religious Muslims or Jews who both choose to go to a sharia court or a beit din, the probate judge will take ithe religious court’s decision into account.” so how does that work. a judge asks an 8 year old if she is muslim and would like to governed by sharia, and if the girl says yes, most likely not knowing the consequenses of her answer, there goes half her inheritance? or worse her muslim uncle claims his right to be the executor of the estate and automatically brings the sharia court ruling to the probate judge and it is accepted?

don’t you think that it is unamerican to segment the society by religion. should we not all follow the same laws?

“The Jewish beit din has been around for over a century, and it certainly doesn’t threaten the American way of life.” speaking of jews being unamerican.

“The problem with most religions is that edicts that made sense a thousand years ago and addressed issues in that context are applied to the modern day.” i agree totally. but i don’t think you understand that most muslims, even western born believe the koran to be prefection. i don’t think many beleive it should be reformed or even modernized. they will still tell you that this is good law because men are the “protectors and maintaners” of women.

“Needless to say Muslims must follow all the commandments of Allah (SWT) as Allah the Almighty says, “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any opinion in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, has indeed strayed into a plain error.” [Quran 33:36]

The particular importance of the Islamic laws of inheritance is obvious from the verses immediately following those verses giving specific details on inheritance shares, “These are limits (set by) Allah (or ordainments as regards laws of inheritance), and whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), to abide therein, and that will be the great success.

And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment.” [Quran 4:13-14]”

//mike malzahn 17 April 2012 at 11:46 am

leyla,

i’m sure you will catch my math to be as haphazzard as my vocabulary. she would only lose a third of her inheritance. thank god for small mercies.

Hi Mike,
I’m not exactly sure how it goes in probate when some of the heirs are minors. It would be interesting to find out. Maybe the judge would assign the child an advocate? If someone is made executor, they have to abide by the ruling of the probate judge.
I was trying to say that religious law can only function in an advisory capacity. I know that rabbis and their Muslim counterparts can be very effective mediators, sometimes settling disputes in an amicable manner before they get to court and waste everybody’s time and money.
Problems arise when closed communities impose religious law under the radar. I’ve heard of 14th century rules being implemented in some of the very closed Hassidic and Mennonite communities, like being pulled out of school too early, or pressured into an arranged marriage. The state will intervene when the authorities find out that somebody’s civil rights are being trampled on. Or when the state finds out that it could be subsidizing gender segregated busses, they close them down.
One example I can give of how religious law and civil law can coexist is this: it’s hard in Sharia, and near impossible in orthodox Judaism for a woman to divorce her husband. Only the man can give her a bill of divorce. But when the woman goes to the civil judge, her lawyer can stipulate in the divorce decree that the man has to give her a religious divorce.

//Leyla 17 April 2012 at 9:29 pm

Even though i am muslim, I dislike sharia law. And sharia law was not in the quar’an, it is what is interpreted. Say what you will, people can do what they want.

//Adam 18 April 2012 at 3:15 am

hey leyla,

you’re confusing the bejesus out of me. first you say, “the case will go to probate” now you say, “I’m not exactly sure how it goes in probate”??????

“Probate is the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person”

“Maybe the judge would assign the child an advocate”. yes that would be a concern if the advocate wanted sharia applied.

anyways my point is that sharia is inconsistant with american law. perhaps i’m a simpleton, but it looks pretty cut and dry to me. as for arbitration, i agree it is a good thing and can save the courts time and money. unless these “anti-sharia” laws are extremely poorly written they would not have any effect on arbitration. i thought they where simply disallowing religious law in american courts? why would an american court need advise from religious leaders/lawyer?

“The state will intervene when the authorities find out that somebody’s civil rights are being trampled on.” i guess you missed the judge in jersey who wouldn’t give the muslim wife a restraining after she claimed her husband raped her. he and his imam argueed in court that there is no such thing as marital rape in islam. it was over turned on appeal though.

Mike, I meant I don’t know what happens if the heir is the child of the deceased, and that child is under the care ( legal guardianship) of non heirs. I ‘d hope the guardians wouldn’t put pressure on the child to throw away their inheritance for any reason. But sh*t happens where ever money is involved.

//Leyla 18 April 2012 at 8:50 pm

Hi Mike!
Oh, what a horrid judge! He must have been one of those guys who passed the bar in the Victorian era. Or maybe he forgot that all states now define marital rape as sexual assault. Thank G-d she won on appeal. I hope the husband is in jail, the judge disbarred, and maybe she can sue for damages.
Anyway, I asked a few of my orthodox relatives about the relationship between religious and civil law. They said that in the case of a minor heir, the state appoints a guardian/ trustee who oversees the inheritance and ensures that it is spent on the child’s welfare. The inheritance automatically goes to the children at age 18. If they themselves BOTH decide to split the inheritance according to religious law, they may do so. In sharia, uncles and other relatives don’t inherit if any of the deceased’s kids are living. Jewish law is a bit more “male” centered, believe it or not! What’s unbelievable is that single British women couldn’t inherit anything unless they were married or had no male relatives! It’s nice debating with you 🙂

//Leyla 18 April 2012 at 9:19 pm

leyla,

i hope that when i said jersey, you knew i was refering to the state of new jersey. sorry didn’t know you were a brit. as for “What’s unbelievable is that single British women couldn’t inherit anything unless they were married or had no male relatives” i hope that is not still the case. are you refering to victorian times again? yes muhammad was ahead of his times giving women anything. i just think we have moved farther along and should agree that gender should play no role in deciding leagal matters. isn’t that why lady justice is blindfolded. that all who come before her are equal in the eyes of the law. always nice debating thou, especially a dark haired beauty. is clapton referancing you in his song? or do you prononce it LEE-lah? 🙂

//mike 19 April 2012 at 6:15 pm

Hey Mike, it’s pronounced like in the the Clapton Song. I’m not a Brit, I’m Turkish Jewish, raised mostly in the US. I mentioned the old British law because I was watching “Downton Abbey” while I was responding to your post. That sexist law was in practice during the WW 1 era…. I think it’s all equal now, except for inheriting the title “lord” and getting the family castle. I think the hereditary aristocracy is still a Boy’s Club.

//Leyla 19 April 2012 at 7:48 pm

hey leyla,

my bad. i was going to ask if you where a jew or a muslim. you threw me with not only your victoria referance but your “orthodox” and “G-d”. thought that was the old god who’s name you can’t say. first instincts, right. i guess i’m gun shy. been called a bigot so many times. oh well. as for the brits, they do have some outdated practices. kings and queens. lords and ladies. house of lords. sirs and dames. lol. as for wwI is that the edwardian era? hard to keep all that straight.

anyways did you follow the turks review of the hadiths like 5 years ago? what do you think of the military leaders walking out of the event because the PM’s wife wore a headsracf? do you think turkey should be a declared secular state as ada turk declared in 23? or are you comfortable with it becoming a declared islamic state?

so why did ya’ll leave turkey?

never heard of “Downton Abbey”. is it worth a watch when i get my cable back on?